IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) FAO No.3290 of 2012 (O&M). Date of Decision:
5. 9.2013. Reliance General Insurance Company Limited .... Appellant Versus Smt. Birmati Devi alias Meera Devi and others .... Respondents (2) FAO No.3594 of 2012 (O&M). Date of Decision:
5. 9.2013. Birmati Devi alias Meera Devi and another .... Appellants Versus Panna Lal and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Sharma, Advocate for Mr. T.K. Joshi, Advocate for the appellant in FAO No.3290. Mr. M.S. Randhawa, Advocate, for the appellants in FAO No.3594. Mr. Arjun Atri, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.5 and 6. NAWAB SINGH.J (ORAL) This judgment shall dispose of afore-mentioned th two appeals arising out of Award dated February 28 , 2012 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”.), Narnaul. Sanjay 2013.09.18 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No.3290 of 2012 (2) 2. FAO No.3290 of 2012 has been filed by Reliance General Insurance Company Limited and FAO No.3594 of 2012 has been filed by the claimants. th 3. On October 11 , 2010 at about 10AM Naresh Kumar along with Sunil Kumar was going on foot to Mahendergarh. When they reached in front of Sector 8, a truck not HR-47-1051 driven by Panna Lal in a rash and negligent manner, came from behind and hit Naresh Kumar. He fell down. He suffered multiple injuries. He was brought to General Hospital, Mahendergarh, from where he was referred to Civil Hospital, Narnaul where he succumbed to his injuries. On the dead body of deceased, post- mortem examination was conducted. Post-mortem examination report is (Exhibit PW-2/A). FIR No.377 under Section 304-A IPC was registered in Police Station Mahendergarh against the driver of the truck.
4. Birmati Devi alias Meera Devi widowed mother, Manot Kumar minot brother, minot sister Kumari Asha and Khema Chand grand father filed claim application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act before the Tribunal.
5. It was pleaded by the claimants that the deceased was an agriculturist. He was also doing private job in a firm in the name and style Vikas Industrial Service, Bawal and was earning Rs.20,000/- per month.
6. To prove the income of the deceased, Birmati Devi mother of the deceased was examined as PW-1. In the absence of documentary evidence, the income of the deceased was held at at Rs.4000/- per month. The deceased was bachelor so, 50% was deducted for his personal and living expenses. The dependency was assessed at Rs.24000/- per year. On the basis of post-mortem examination report (Exhibit PW-2/A), age of the deceased was held to be 19 years and multiplier of 18 was applied. The loss of dependency was held at Rs.4,32,000/-. Sums of Rs.5000/- each were awarded for funeral expenses and loss of the estate. In all, compensation of Rs.4,42,000/- was awarded. The Sanjay 2013.09.18 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No.3290 of 2012 (3) minot brother and sister were not awarded compensation rather the compensation was awarded to the mother and grand father of the deceased in equal shares.
7. In appeal before this Court, the insurer has assailed the Award on the ground that the Tribunal fell in error in applying the multiplier of 18 considering the age of the deceased to be 19 years. Date of birth of the deceased as mentioned in the Secondary (Matric) Examination Certificate issued by Board of st School Education, Haryana (Annexure P-1) is December 31 , 1986 so, the deceased was 24 years of age at the time of his death and the multiplier should have been applied considering the age of the mother. Reliance in this regard has been placed on National Insurance Company Limited vs.Shyam Singh and others 2011 (7) SCC 65.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has urged that the minot brother and sister, who were dependent upon the deceased, should also have been awarded compensation. He has further urged that they were minors and the deceased was the eldest son. He was the only bread winner of the family. The minors lost their father also so, they should have been granted compensation. The Tribunal did not award any addition to the income of the deceased towards future prospects.
9. Indeed, the multiplier should have been applied considering the age of the mother and not of the deceased as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Shyam Singh's case (supra) so, in this case, the appropriate multiplier was 14 and No.15. Further, even if the deceased was a self-employed, addition of 50% to the income of the deceased should have been given for future prospects in view of (i) Rajesh and others vs. Rajbir Signh and others 2013 ACJ 140.and (ii) Poonam etc. vs. Rajbir Rawat etc. 2013(1) RCR (Civil) 988. Adding 50%, the income of the deceased rd is held at Rs.6000/- per month. Deduction of 1/3 is made for his personal and living expenses in view of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Smt. Sarla Verma and others vs. Delhi Sanjay 2013.09.18 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court FAO No.3290 of 2012 (4) Transport Corporation and another 2009(6) SCC 12.wherein it was held as under:- “However, where the family of the bachelor is large and dependent on the income of the deceased, as in a case where he has a widowed mother and large number of younger non-earning sisters or brothers, his personal and living expenses may be restricted to one-third and contribution to the family will be taken as two- third.”
10. Thus, the dependency is assessed at Rs.6000- 2000= 4000. Multiplier of 14 is applied and the loss of dependency is assessed at Rs.6,72,000 (4000 x 12 x 14). The amounts of compensation awarded under the conventional heads remain unaltered.
11. In view of above, the Award of the Tribunal is modified to the extent that the appellants are held entitled to total compensation of Rs.6,82,000/-. The interest on the enhanced amount of Rs.2,40,000/- shall be paid from the date of filing claim application till the amount was deposited by the insurance company under the impugned Award at the same rate of interest as was awarded by the Tribunal.
12. The enhanced amount of compensation shall be paid to the appellants in equal share.
13. Both the appeals are disposed of in the manner indicated above. 5.9.2013. (NAWAB SINGH) SN JUDGE Sanjay 2013.09.18 11:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Punjab and Haryana High Court